Political non-debate

jvquarterback wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:
Hamilton, Madison and Jay would beg to differ on what you have to say about the executive. The executive's purview on legislation is limited to the time prior to its passage. That is he may submit legislation or veto it. If Romney thinks obamacare is unconstitutional he should say so to the courts, not attempt his only judicial review and rewriting of the law. He is setting himself up as a king.

It seems to me the only way one can come to the conclusion that Romney is trying to become king is by completely ignoring the fact that Obama has already done so with the help of congress. Was Lincoln trying to become king with the emancipation proclamation? Earthly kings do not set people free. Freeing people from slavery or oppression is totally in line with the constitution and declaration of independence.

Like you say Obama has set himself up as a king and has issued many executive orders in an attempt to usurp the power of legislation. So did many of his predecessors of both parties. If we wish to restore the Constitution to its rightful place we can't start by saying we'll vote for someone who, as his first act in office, will continue to flout the Constitutional separation of powers.

It seems to me that you misunderstand the meaning of "separation of powers." Neither the legislative or judicial branches can dictate to the president how to do his job. If they could it would be a combination of powers not separation.



I forget how many laws that are on the books but it might as well be a trillion. IRC, If you read 700 pages of federal code a week it would take 25,000 years to read. So no one knows all the laws on the books let alone enforces them consistently. The executive branch must decide how to best deal with that impossible situation. Not enforcing all laws on the books is not unconstitutional, it is just the way things work.



You never answered my question about Lincoln. Was he trying to be king by issuing the emancipation proclamation?

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/1/28/129091632927919426.jpg" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Lincoln himself would have argued that he was issuing the order as an action as commander in chief and director of the war effort. Not as part legislation. I'd say he was wrong.

jvquarterback wrote:
Lincoln himself would have argued that he was issuing the order as an action as commander in chief and director of the war effort. Not as part legislation. I'd say he was wrong.

Wait, are you saying that Lincoln was WRONG in freeing the ENSLAVED population?!



You're not actually arguing that this was an INCORRECT use of the powers of the executive. That those people should have remained SLAVES because the President doesn't have the proper Constitutional authority to free them?



Wow! I don't think I've ever read a more incorrect opinion on this board before.

Lincoln argued, as did John Quincy Adams before him, that the only way to free the slaves by executive order was as a wartime act. That is part of the reasoning for why he did not free the slaves in Kentucky, West Virginia or Maryland. When I say he was wrong, I mean he was wrong in that assessment or that I still think Lincoln was usurping the power of the legislature in his action, rather than using his power as the executive during a war.



It is interesting to note that the United States are the only nation to eliminate slavery via war. It would have cost one twentieth of what the war cost and saved 600,000 lives if they had simply purchased the freedom of the slaves and subsequently outlawed slavery. But then we wouldn't have all those wonderful books about preserving the union.

tww wrote:

It seems to me that you misunderstand the meaning of "separation of powers." Neither the legislative or judicial branches can dictate to the president how to do his job. If they could it would be a combination of powers not separation.

The executive branch of government is designed to do just that: Execute the will of the people expressed by their representatives in the legislature as interpreted by the judiciary. So both the legislature and judiciary are designed to dictate to the president what to do and how to do it.

jvquarterback wrote:

It seems to me that you misunderstand the meaning of "separation of powers." Neither the legislative or judicial branches can dictate to the president how to do his job. If they could it would be a combination of powers not separation.

The executive branch of government is designed to do just that: Execute the will of the people expressed by there representatives in the legislature as interpreted by the judiciary. So both the legislature and judiciary are designed to dictate to the president what to do and how to do it.

Hhhhmmm... I've been given the impression that Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony (but I question my source)

Here's a hypothetical for you jv:



In an effort to balance the budget, Congress passes a law shuttering on-base housing for unmarried armed forces personnel, and requiring that they instead be quartered with civilians earning $125,000 per year or more (you know, the 1%). The Supreme Court, under threat of impeachment by Newt Gingrich, declines to test the constitutionality of the law, citing the "political question" doctrine.



Must the president enforce the law as it represents the will of the people expressed by their representatives?

Yes, if he wishes to obey his duty as executive as outlined in the Constitution.



But if he wishes to abdicate the presidency and lead the people in open rebellion against the legislature and judiciary I would be glad to join him. Just don't pretend he is somehow fulfilling his oath to uphold the Constitution while undertaking unconstitutional actions.

jvquarterback wrote:
Yes, if he wishes to obey his duty as executive as outlined in the Constitution.



But if he wishes to abdicate the presidency and lead the people in open rebellion against the legislature and judiciary I would be glad to join him. Just don't pretend he is somehow fulfilling his oath to uphold the Constitution while undertaking unconstitutional actions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I wonder if the Third Amendment would prevent him?



You just got completely pwnd.

So basically vote for Ron Paul if you want slavery reinstated and our rights completelystripped away? We all knew Paul was racist, but reinstating slavery is mind numbingly stupid.

I'm against neither the 3rd amendment nor for slavery.



I am against the executive assuming the power of the legislature and judiciary while he preens about purporting to follow the Constitution while, in actuality, he's shredding it.

Oh as far as the racism charge goes, while Mitt Romney was at Harvard learning how to call people tar-babies, Ron Paul was delivering the children of blacks and latinos gratis in Texas.



Before you try to defame someone like a left-wing turd by calling them a racist, perhaps you might want to evaluate what they've done with their life. I have to say that comment is a pretty sorry commentary on your ability to find the truth hawkwing.

jvquarterback wrote:
I'm against neither the 3rd amendment nor for slavery.



I am against the executive assuming the power of the legislature and judiciary while he preens about purporting to follow the Constitution while, in actuality, he's shredding it.

Yet somehow you believe President Lincoln was wrong to end slavery and that a president would have to quarter Soldiers.

SpiffCoug wrote:

I'm against neither the 3rd amendment nor for slavery.



I am against the executive assuming the power of the legislature and judiciary while he preens about purporting to follow the Constitution while, in actuality, he's shredding it.

Yet somehow you believe President Lincoln was wrong to end slavery and that a president would have to quarter Soldiers.

No I do not believe either of those things. I'm saying that it is proper for a president to rebel against their Constitutionally mandated duties toward the legislature and judiciary in some instances. I'm also saying that the president should acknowledge that rebellion rather than pretend the action is Constitutionally mandated.

jvquarterback wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:
I'm against neither the 3rd amendment nor for slavery.



I am against the executive assuming the power of the legislature and judiciary while he preens about purporting to follow the Constitution while, in actuality, he's shredding it.

Yet somehow you believe President Lincoln was wrong to end slavery and that a president would have to quarter Soldiers.

No I do not believe either of those things. I'm saying that it is proper for a president to rebel against their Constitutionally mandated duties toward the legislature and judiciary in some instances. I'm also saying that the president should acknowledge that rebellion rather than pretend the action is Constitutionally mandated.

"In some instances"? Which apparently freeing slaves and prohibiting the quartering of Soldiers falls into.

Where are the constitutionally mandated duties of the Executive toward the Legislative and Judicial enumerated in the Constitution? All it says is that "all executive power" is vested in the Executive.



The most explicit statement of his duties is also the most damning to jvquarterback's asinine assertion that the Constitution obligates him to obey the legislature to the detriment of the Constitution comes in the presidential oath, which is found in the constitution: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."



Funny how he's supposed to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, but not fiats of the Legislative. I have a hard time seeing how your perspective is constitutionally based, but I do understand how you felt obligated to take that stance, else you would be forced to admit that the Executive isn't a slave to the laws passed by the Legislative.

snoscythe wrote:
I have a hard time seeing how your perspective is constitutionally based, but I do understand how you felt obligated to take that stance, else you would be forced to admit that the Executive isn't a slave to the laws passed by the Legislative.

Of course the Executive is a slave to the Legislative - otherwise it would have the power to abolish slavery. Slaves simply can't free themselves. They clearly need to wait for their Legislative masters to free them

It seems the problem is your unwillingness to admit the word executive means executive. You know, as in one who executes the law.



Now I have no problem with people rebelling against an unjust law, but they shouldn't go all Orwellian on us and say they are acting in their executive capacity when they are doing exactly the opposite.

jvquarterback wrote:
It seems the problem is your unwillingness to admit the word executive means executive. You know, as in one who executes the law.



Now I have no problem with people rebelling against an unjust law, but they shouldn't go all Orwellian on us and say they are acting in their executive capacity when they are doing exactly the opposite.

And what about your unwillingness to address the issue of the presidential oath of office which makes no mention of legislative acts, but is pretty explicit about the Constitution?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">